Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/16888/2016closed

Muthu v. The Superintendent Of Police

2016-09-12Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16888 of 2016 1.Muthu 2.Mookammal 3.Sudha 4.Pandiyarajan 5.Mokkapandi 6.Chittukkani 7.Antichami 8.Eswari 9.Vignesh 10.Virali 11.Eswari 12.Mahesh 13.Kasi 14.Kalai 15.Muthulakshmi .. Petitioners Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police, 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakkottai,Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nilakkottai, .. Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioners in the name of enquiry.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Suresh For respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Criminal side)

ORDER

It is an application seeking a direction to the respondent police not to harass the petitioners under the guise of enquiry. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents.

3.Mr.M.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are in-laws of one Anitha, who has married the son of the petitioners 1 and 2. It is further submitted that the said Anitha filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.66 of 2016 against her husband Selvan and the petitioners are being harassed by the respondent police to execute a non-bailable warrant issued against the said Selvan in that case.

4. Learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) would submit that a criminal case was filed against the petitioners, but they were granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14719 of 2016 and only to execute the non-bailable warrant against the said Selvan, the third respondent has enquired the petitioners and they were not harassed by the respondent police. However, he gave an undertaking that if at all the presence of the petitioners is required, the respondent would call the petitioners for enquiry only after issuing summons giving specific date, time and place.

5. Recording the above undertaking given by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this petition is closed. However, the third respondent, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District, shall not harass the petitioners under the guise of enquiry.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police, 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakkottai,Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nilakkottai, 4.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to M/s.K.Manikandan, Advocate Sr.No.51678 pjl sm:CK:03.09.2016:3P/6C Crl.O.P(MD)No.16888 of 2016 12.09.2016